Final Performance Report California Department of Fish and Game

1. State: California

Grant number: E-2-P-23

Grant name: 2003 Threatened and Endangered

Project number and name: EP03-7: Development of Howell’s spineflower ( howellii) habitat restoration and recovery strategy involving iceplant removal, MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, CA

2. Report Period: July 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007

Report due date: May 17, 2007 Report received by USFWS date______

3. Location of work (Include the county; if statewide don’t list districts and counties; coordination activities can be listed as the office location): MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, CA

4. Costs: Please identify sources of federal and no-federal match and indicate amounts budgeted and spend for each. Indicate if match is in-kind. Indicate in the table whether costs are “Actual” or “Estimated”.

Fund source Budgeted Actual Amount Spent Federal: USFWS 29,000 State: California Other:______Other:______Total Federal: 29,000 Total Match: 9,667 Total Project: 33,773

5. Objectives: (list project objectives from grant proposal or grant agreement):

ƒ Conduct historical research on iceplant distribution and growth rate within the park.

ƒ Map current distribution of iceplant; enter into GIS layer and overlay on spineflower distribution; select 20 or more potential iceplant removal sites representing varying distances from spineflower colonies and environmental conditions.

ƒ Complete Section 106 NHPA clearance for removal sites.

ƒ Establish permanent monitoring plots and conduct initial photodocumentation and monitoring, to include characterization of soils, physical factors, species composition and structure both within and surrounding the removal areas.

ƒ Conduct manual removal of iceplant.

ƒ Conduct post removal annual monitoring for 3 field seasons to document reoccupation of removal areas.

ƒ Summarize results in report, and make recommendations regarding utilization of iceplant removal in long term management of spineflower.

6. If the work in this grant was part of a larger undertaking with other components and funding, present a brief overview of the larger activity and the role of this project.

n/a

7. Describe how the objectives were met. See attachment 1 for additional requirements.

Please see attached report

8. Discuss differences between work anticipated in grant proposal and grant agreement, and that actually carried out with Federal Aid grant funds; include differences between expected and actual costs.

n/a

9. List any publications or in-house reports resulting from this work. Provide citations, including status (indicate if not completed), note any that are included with this report, and note where reports or publications may be obtained.

None completed to date.

Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of person compiling this report:

Mary Ann Showers Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected] 916-651-6594

Development of a Restoration Strategy for Howell’s Spineflower

MacKerricher State Park

Progress Report May 2007 by Peter J. Warner Environmental Scientist California State Parks Mendocino District

Project Update (May 2007) Since the 2006 report, the only project activity has involved plot maintenance (removal of scattered iceplant seedlings) and the production and presentation of the project and pertinent data to a State Parks resources training in January 2007.

Introduction This report summarizes the results of a study intended to provide data in support of the development of a strategy for the recolonization of suitable habitat by Howell’s spineflower ( - ST/FE), an annual that grows almost entirely within MacKerricher State Park, north of Ft. Bragg, California. The study was funded by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service under Section 6 Grant E-2-P-23, and administered by the California Dept. of Fish & Game under Contract number P0330013. The project has been implemented by the Calif. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, Mendocino District. As of October 2005, all grant funds had been expended. State Parks has continued funding the project for maintenance and data collection activities, and intends to continue doing so indefinitely.

The report provides a methods section, study results, and a discussion section that interprets the data and provides an interim analysis of their significance. This section also includes a brief summary of strategic issues and management options. A project description, including discussions of the ecosystem, the plant community, Howell’s spineflower, and other details, developed prior to project implementation, provides introductory information and is appended to this report.

Methods To address the potential for recolonization by Howell’s spineflower following a manual iceplant removal regimen, State Parks staff established twenty-five 50m2 plots, each within spineflower habitat and each with at least 50% iceplant cover, between Lake Cleone and the south end of the Ten Mile at MacKerricher State Park in winter 2004-05. We did not purposefully incorporate slope aspect or pitch as variables, although plot topography ranges from concave swale bottoms to convex tops, with most aspects either S- to SW- or N-facing. On each plot, we established five 1m2 quadrats, representing 10% of the total area of each plot, in a regular array (i.e., quadrats were not randomly situated, instead consistently located on all plots). Data collected prior to iceplant removal and once during each of the two following spring seasons included cover by plant species and other types of surface material (e.g., bare sand,

1 litter). Data were recorded in one of six categories for estimating cover on entire plots: Category 1 = 0-1; Cat. 2 = 1-5; Cat. 3 = 5-25; Cat. 4 = 25-50; Cat. 5 = 50-75; and Cat. 6 = 75-100%. We also estimated cover by plant species or other ground cover to the nearest 1% on each of the five quadrats on each plot. We estimated both cover category values on plots and percentage cover values on quadrats visually; on quadrats we used a 1m2 frame sectioned into 1/100m2 squares to assist in estimating cover to the nearest 1%. In addition, we counted the numbers of spineflower plants on quadrats, and estimated spineflower numbers on each 50m2 plot. Following the compilation of pre-treatment data, State Parks staff removed all iceplant by hand in January 2005. On even-numbered plots (n=12), we removed bulk organic litter in February 2005. This treatment was essentially a litter layer reduction; most plots retained a shallow (<1cm depth) litter layer after bulk removal. We left all plant litter (minus the just-removed iceplant remains) on odd-numbered plots (n=13). During data collection visits in May 2005 and June 2006, and during plot maintenance in January 2006, we removed all observed iceplant that had germinated or otherwise regrown onto plots.

Photo-documentation We photographed all plots 1) prior to iceplant removal, 2) following the litter removal process, and during data compilation in 3) May 2005 and 4) June 2006. Each plot was photographed from just outside each plot corner looking diagonally across the plot, and labeled corresponding to the nearest cardinal direction for that corner and by month-year photographed. These photographs are available upon request.

Statistical Compilation I compiled all data collected into an Excel spreadsheet, arranged by plots, quadrats, species, other ground cover types, and physical data (slope, exposure, etc.). Each observed plant species has been designated native or non-native; any taxon not identified to a level sufficient to determine native status were left out of computations. To date, I’ve attempted no statistical analyses other than computing simple means and proportions among species, and between groups, litter treatments, and years. Thus, all results shown below are based on raw data and basic spreadsheet computations.

Cover category values are not quantitatively accurate, and are used generally to assess relative cover over multiple samples over a relatively broad area. These values were only employed on the 50m2 plots, not on the 1m2 quadrats. I’ve used computations derived from cover category values here mostly to illustrate general patterns of relative cover and species dominance; these data will not be used at this time for determining statistical significance of any treatments.

Preliminary Results Iceplant cover dropped precipitously following initial removal: from an average cover category of 5.8 (out of maximum value of 6) and a mean cover on quadrats of 81.6%, prior to removal to an average cover category value of 0.9 on plots and 0.24% on quadrats in May 2005 (Photos 1, 2, and 3). In June of 2006, the average cover category value of iceplant cover was 0.84, and the cover on quadrats was 0.03%.

Prior to iceplant removal (January 2005), we observed at least one spineflower plant on 7 of the 25 plots, with the spineflower cover on each of those 7 plots in category 1 (0-1%). By May 2005, this count had increased to 12 plots with spineflower (an estimated 369 plants in total), with

2 spineflower cover in category 2 (between 1 and 5%) on 3 plots (Photos 4, 5, and 6). In early June 2006, 21 plots had at least one spineflower plant; on 3 plots spineflower cover had increased to category 4 (over 25%); spineflower plants on many 50m2 plots had grown too numerous to count individually. On the 125 quadrats within those 25 plots, spineflower cover averaged virtually zero (less than 0.1%) prior to iceplant removal; the total number of plants was 54. By May 2005, spineflower cover on quadrats had increased to a mean of 0.24% with 108 plants accounting for that cover. In June 2006, spineflower cover had reached an average of 2.7% on quadrats by virtue of 758 plants counted.

In May 2005, as measured on quadrats (n=60), spineflower cover on litter-removal plots averaged 0.4%, whereas on littered quadrats (n=65), the mean for this measure was 0.3%. As of June 2006, spineflower cover on litter-removal quadrats averaged about 3.2%, and on littered quadrats the mean was 2.2%.

In addition to investigating the recovery of Howell’s spineflower, we are also interested in the recovery of other native species, or conversely, in the colonization by non-native species, where iceplant has been removed. While native species diversity (number of species) was greater than that of non-native species in both years following iceplant removal, average cover by the non- natives far exceeded that of native plants. In 2005, for all 25 plots, a total of 27 non-native species averaged a cover category value of 0.36, whereas 48 native species averaged a value of 0.26. The top six species in cover category average were Bromus diandrus (1.72), Rumex acetosella (1.08), Geranium molle (0.96), Lupinus littoralis (0.96), edulis (0.92), and paronychia (0.92); Lupinus and Polygonum are native species. At that time, the average cover value for litter was 5.16, and for sand, 2.56. In 2006, 38 non-native plant species averaged about the same cover category value, 0.36, while a total of 52 native species increased the average cover category value to 0.30. The top six cover values were for Bromus diandrus (2.72), Rumex acetosella (1.84), Chorizanthe (1.56), Briza maxima (1.32), Daucus pusillus (1.08), and Lupinus littoralis (1.08); Chorizanthe, Daucus, and Lupinus are native species. Also in 2006, litter cover averaged a value of 4.16, and sand a value of 3.08, on the 25 plots.

Grouping the individual cover proportions by native and non-native species allows a cursory estimation of the relative recovery of these two suites of plants. On quadrats, the total of plant cover and that of other types of groundcover (e.g., litter, sand, soil, rock) varies due to overlap of plant species with one another, i.e., the total is not necessarily 100%, but can vary from 100% upwards based upon the amount of overlap (layering) among plant species. In 2005, across the 125 quadrats, native species averaged 3.0% of all cover, non-native plants averaged 6.5%, while the mean relative cover for sand was 11.3% and that for litter was 79.2%. As of June 2006, native species averaged 9.4% cover on quadrats, non-native species 23.5%, sand 23.0%, and litter 44.2%. Thus, while total plant cover increased from about 9.5% in 2005 to almost 33% in 2006, the proportional increase in non-native plant cover was greater than that for native plants.

In 2006, Briza maxima, Bromus diandrus, Geranium molle, Rumex acetosella, and Vulpia myuros accounted for most of the non-native species cover. In contrast, among native species, only Chorizanthe howellii consistently accounted for a relatively large proportion of cover on plots and quadrats, with many others, such as Ambrosia chamissonis, Bromus carinatus, Daucus

3 pusillus, Grindelia stricta, Leymus pacificus, Lupinus littoralis, Poa douglasii, and Polygonum paronychia, dominant on some plots or portions thereof.

Labor Statistics The total treatment area of 25 50-m2 plots equals 0.125 hectare, or about 0.3 acre. To accomplish initial iceplant and litter removal, and plot maintenance (1 year), we worked an estimated 332 hours. At an estimated $15/hour pay rate, the cost-value of this iceplant-removal trial was about $5000* (= $16,000+/acre), and did not include expenses incurred for data compilation, equipment, or most importantly, removal of plant debris (left on-site adjacent to plots) – a step that would be necessary for more extensive site restoration. (* Actual costs were higher, based on differential pay rates, travel costs, etc.)

Discussion The decrease in iceplant cover from pre-treatment through spring 2006 was expected in light of long-term, repeated observations of the efficacy of manual removal, and demonstrated that this method can indeed reduce iceplant cover provided the resources are available in proportion to the size of the targeted treatment area. More importantly, the increase in cover of Howell’s spineflower appears to be correlated with iceplant removal, sand disturbance, or both (acknowledging a lack of statistical corroboration for this observation), suggesting that spineflower can re-colonize habitat through the removal of one of its chief competitors for space and other vital resources. While the limited data preclude drawing firm conclusions, the removal of bulk litter, several centimeters thick on most plots, appears to hasten the recovery of spineflower on plots thus treated. Also worth noting is the sharp decrease in litter cover on litter- removal plots between 2005 and 2006, suggesting that the organic material is being incorporated into sub-surface soil horizons, or blown off-site by the wind.

The data also suggest other effects and trends. Most notably, the removal of iceplant, while apparently beneficial to Howell’s spineflower, does not necessarily result in a similar recovery of other native components of dune mat vegetation, including several other rare annuals (e.g., Collinsia corymbosa, Gilia millefoliata, Phacelia insularis ssp. continentis). While we did observe increases in cover by these and other native plant species, the proportional increase in cover (2005 to 2006) by non-native species was considerably greater, although one year’s data should not be considered conclusive. Yet the dramatic increase in non-native species such as sheep sorrel, ripgut brome, and quaking grass suggests that recovery of native plant habitat, including that of Howell’s spineflower, may continue to be constrained by competition with these and other non-native species, even in the absence of a suffocating layer of iceplant. As such, management goals aimed at sustaining the recovery of the spineflower may need to include measures designed to curb other invasive species while promoting habitat improvement for native plants. Since less disturbance on plots for iceplant removal will be necessary over the next several years, observing the dynamics of species cover and composition over a sustained period of time will likely provide valuable information to benefit further strategic planning.

One of the more important caveats about the use of the data, as presented, is its compilation over such a brief time. As suggested, data collection over several years will provide a more accurate assessment of longer term trends, provided funding is available to continue to gather and analyze data. This study was limited in its scope due to funding constraints and other considerations; the

4 greater proportion of funding was allocated to labor, leaving little for incorporating additional treatments or sustaining the study over a longer time period. In particular, the failure to implement other treatments (in addition to manual removal) was a lost opportunity from a landscape management perspective. Other trials could include the use of mechanical equipment (excavators, tractors with rippers) or chemical treatments. Mechanical treatment is obviously destructive, and would result in even greater surface disturbance than does manual iceplant removal; native seed banks could very well be buried beyond any potential for germination as a result of the level of sand disturbance that this treatment would incur. Native vegetation would likely require considerably more time in which to recover, and might need to be augmented through human-assisted plant propagation and restoration.

Other than simple manual iceplant and litter removal treatments, we also did not implement any additional disturbance regimes, although at least 2 plots included foot trails – however, we did not attempt to quantify either trail impacts or potential effects on those plots. The graphical data compiled, including hand drawings of the general distribution of spineflower plants on plots in May 2005 and June 2006, may lend themselves to spatial analysis, however, this work has not been attempted yet. In addition, “disturbance” treatments could be implemented at any time on these plots, or a sampling thereof, to investigate the efficacy of disturbance on increasing or maintaining Howell’s spineflower numbers.

Manual removal of iceplant, while apparently effective for the stated purpose of recovering spineflower habitat, is clearly not the most efficient method for eliminating the competition, especially in light of rapidly expanding iceplant cover and limited management resources. In the 1990’s, glyphosate treatment of iceplant patches at the Bodega Marine Reserve resulted in excellent recovery of those sites by native plant species, albeit in coastal bluff and prairie habitats already dominated by native taxa (P.G. Connors, personal communication). Treatment of iceplant with glyphosate can be seasonally timed to limit damage to non-target plants, including the annual spineflower, individuals of which have produced seed and died by late summer, being essentially dormant through early winter when seeds germinate in the dunes. The slow, post-treatment decay of iceplant biomass allows for soil or sand retention while other species gradually re-occupy iceplant patches. Spineflower and other species might take longer to recover on iceplant patches treated chemically, but this treatment might also slow down the invasion rate of non-native plants, as well. An additional benefit is that glyphosate treatments could cover many times the area that could be treated manually for equivalent commitments of resources. Any serious attempt to reduce or eliminate the large areas of iceplant currently dominating coastal bluffs, dunes, and prairie must necessarily optimize the expenditures of limited resources for such work. If goals for dune restoration and recovery of rare plants have any chance for success, a sudden financial windfall or unexpected epidemic of volunteerism notwithstanding, the tasks at hand cannot be left solely to the work of hands. I believe that the greater benefit would accrue through the use of all habitat management and restoration tools available, not just those that are considered the most politically palatable.

5

Photo 1. Spineflower Plot 14SW, May 2005.

6

Photo 2. Spineflower Plot 14SW, May 2005.

7

Photo 3. Spineflower Plot 6SW, May 2005.

8 9

Photo 4. Spineflower Plot 6SW, January 2005.

10

Photo 5. Spineflower Plot 14SW, January 2005.

11

Photo 6. Spineflower Plot 24NW, January 2005.

12 Appendix A: Project Description

The Development of a Habitat Restoration Strategy for Howell’s Spineflower at MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, CA

Introduction This project will conduct field trials and monitoring that will provide information about appropriate management strategies for the federally endangered Howell’s spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii []). We will conduct this study beginning in summer 2004, and will complete data collection in spring 2007. The sites for this study all lie within MacKerricher State Park, in stabilized dunes east of the haul road, from just north of the Lake Cleone parking lot to approximately ¼ mile north of the Ward Avenue parking lot.

Funding for this project has been provided through the U. S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife’s Endangered Species Act, Section 6 program. The contract sum of $20,698 will provide labor, materials, and data collection, analysis, and storage. In-kind support, services, and materials, at a value of $8,300, will be provided by the California Department of Parks and Recreation; the latter sum will cover a final year of monitoring.

Ecology of Howell’s Spineflower Howell’s spineflower is a low-growing annual, completing its life cycle within one year. Vegetative growth begins in winter, with flowering at its peak in May and June. Dispersal of its seeds is facilitated by the spiny tips of the involucre (perianth), allowing the mature involucres and fruits (achenes), containing seeds, to cling to animal fur (or humans, human clothing, etc.).

Howell’s spineflower appears to prosper in relatively open areas of stabilized sand dunes and adjacent headlands, from just above sea level to about 100 feet elevation. While seldom persisting in areas of shifting sand or dense vegetative cover, the species does rely on adjacent vegetative cover and perhaps, minor to moderate accumulations of organic matter, as substrate- stabilizing influences. In open dunes and on coastal bluffs, the spineflower is associated with sand verbena (Abronia latifolia) and Menzies’s wallflower ( ssp. menziesii). In hind-dune areas, dune scrub, and transitional coastal prairie vegetation, common associates include non-native grasses, such as sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and purple velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), and native perennials and annuals that include dune knotweed (Polygonum paronychia), Brewer’s rush (Juncus breweri), Mendocino coast paintbrush (Castilleja mendocinensis), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), northcoast phacelia (Phacelia insularis var. continentis), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and large quaking grass (Briza maxima).

Study System Virtually the entire known distribution of Howell’s spineflower lies within the boundaries of MacKerricher State Park,on the Mendocino County coast just north of Fort Bragg. Most occurrences of C. howellii have been documented for the coastal bluffs and dunes between Laguna Point and the mouth of Ten Mile River, in sand or sandy coastal prairie soils. This area has historically been subjected to diverse human-caused disturbances, including foot traffic, horse traffic, trail and road maintenance, and non-native plant invasions. In some areas,

13 spineflower has been eliminated due to residential development. Remnants of a coastal logging haul road persist across much of the spineflower’s habitat; a proposal to re-construct this coastal road has been abandoned. However, ongoing and persistent impacts threaten the species throughout its limited geographical range.

About half the patches of Howell’s spineflower grow in areas of regular human disturbance, while the remaining stands are infrequently disturbed by humans This range of disturbance regimes provides an opportunity to study the influence of human activities on spineflower colonization, with implications for long-term spineflower management and conservation. Along with trampling, trail maintenance, and other direct human impacts, spineflower colonies are also threatened, to varying degrees, by encroaching patches of the non-native invasive groundcover Hottentot-fig (aka iceplant; ). Iceplant, native to South Africa, is well established in the park’s fore- and hind-dunes and coastal bluff habitats. Its ecological requirements appear to overlap substantially with those of Chorizanthe howellii. Iceplant may be a significant factor in the exclusion of spineflower from otherwise suitable habitat, although this is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Carpobrotus forms a dense mat that competes vigorously for water, nutrients, and light at the soil surface; the species also significantly reduces soil pH. Other than Chorizanthe, iceplant also threatens the federally endangered Menzies’s wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii) and several other species considered rare or endangered throughout their ranges, including round-headed Chinese houses (Collinsia corymbosa), North Coast phacelia (Phacelia insularis var. continentis), seaside gilia (Gilia millefoliata), and pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora).

In 1998, State Parks personnel removed iceplant intending to improve habitat for rare plants at several locations within MacKerricher State Park. They observed that Howell’s spineflower responded to iceplant removal, under otherwise unspecified conditions, with increases in population size, especially where a thin layer of organic litter remained. Given the harsh dune environment, the survival rate of some species (particularly annuals with relatively shallow root systems) may increase as a result of enhanced soil moisture and temperatures moderated by a temporary or shallow litter layer. However, successful spineflower establishment is likely affected by an array of factors not yet documented or understood. As is the case for many early successional species, the optimal disturbance regime for Chorizanthe reproductive success is likely complex. Controlled environmental manipulations and monitoring will be necessary in order to determine the relative influences of a variety of ecological factors on spineflower colonization. Among the factors that appear to be influential on spineflower success are the distance to existing sources of spineflower seed and the depth of litter.

Goals In order to increase knowledge about the roles of soil disturbance, iceplant cover, organic litter, and distance to propagule source on spineflower success, we propose the following strategic approach: 1. Determine the past and current distribution of ice plant and its encroachment rate within the state park; 2. Remove iceplant experimentally under varying disturbance regimes across a range of physical proximities to spineflower colonies;

14 3. Conduct a three-year monitoring program to determine the relationship between iceplant removal and spineflower colonization. 4. Produce a report on the concepts and goals of this project, a discussion of the results, and recommendations for the management of iceplant and spineflower.

Methods As a condition of implementing this project, and prior to iceplant removal, this project will be reviewed for compliance under Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act. During the marking of plots, an archaeologist will work with District resources staff, in order to avoid impacts to sensitive cultural resources.

Goal #1: The history of encroachment by iceplant (i.e., its introduction and subsequent expansion rate) and its current distribution in the park are not documented. Aerial photographs, covering the known range of Chorizanthe at MacKerricher State Park, will be used to estimate past iceplant distribution, and its current distribution will be mapped using GPS and GIS technology. A comparison of the past and current distributional data will provide an estimate of the rate of change in iceplant cover in the park. The area preliminarily identified for this analysis is from Laguna Point north to Inglenook Creek, in dune, dune scrub, and coastal prairie habitats.

Goal #2: The spatial data on iceplant will be juxtaposed with existing spineflower GIS data in order to select potential iceplant removal sites at variable distances from spineflower colonies. A minimum of 25 trial removal sites will be established, covering a reasonable range in distances and directions from iceplant patches to the nearest spineflower colonies. Currently, the proposed study sites are concentrated in four areas in the hind dunes at MacKerricher State Park, between the day-use parking lot at Lake Cleone, north to the end of the paved haul road section just north of the Ward Avenue parking area; all potential plot locations are east of the haul road, and within 75 meters of it.

To the extent possible, a range of other physiographic factors that might influence spineflower colonization will also be incorporated into the selection of the trial sites. These factors include slope aspect and pitch, microrelief, and vegetation types. At each site, one or more plots will be established; these will remain marked for the 3-year duration of the study.

Plots will be 50-square-meter squares, marked at corners with wooden stakes and flags, with up to a one-meter buffer zone around each plot. Each plot will be photographed from a minimum of 2 standard perspectives and distances. On each plot, we will record initial data, including quantification or description of the following variables: distance to the ocean, soil type, slope aspect, microrelief, species composition and cover, distance and direction to nearest spineflower colony, estimated population size of spineflower colony, and a quantitative and qualitative description of the site’s disturbance regime.

State Parks personnel will remove the iceplant solely by manual methods – small hand tools may be used to extract roots or stems. Once all initial data on all plots has been recorded, removal will be scheduled for the months of October, November, and December 2004. All removal work should be accomplished over as short a period of time as possible, and should be completed prior to the first substantial rainfalls in autumn 2004. All visible living iceplant will be removed from

15 all plots, with an additional buffer of at least one foot on all sides of each plot. All living iceplant debris will be removed manually (no raking) from all plots to locations a minimum distance of 25 meters away, and debris piles will be monitored for regrowth for the duration of these trials. On about half the plots, all dry (dead) iceplant litter will be raked lightly off plots. This material will be used to supplement existing dry litter on the remaining plots, in effect creating 2 treatments: one set of plots with litter, and an approximately equal number without litter. On each litter plot, litter depth will be recorded at random from 20 points. These data will produce an average litter depth for each plot. All plots will be photographed from 2 standard perspectives and distances.

Goal #3 In spring 2005, 2006, and 2007, we will collect plant cover and composition data from all plots. This will include quantifying or describing any variables that may have changed, including plant composition and cover, litter depth, and proximity and direction to spineflower colonies. In addition, qualitative changes in disturbance regimes or other pertinent information should be noted. All plots will be photographed from the standardized locations. To the extent possible, plots should be undisturbed by data collection activities.

In fall 2005 and 2006, within 20 calendar-days of the anniversary of initial iceplant removal on each plot, iceplant regrowth will be removed in the same manner as that of the original work. Litter depths will be measured at the same number of randomly selected locations as for the original measurements. Data for any autumn-peak-phenology species observed will be recorded. All plots will be photographed from the standardized locations. Observations of any other circumstances or impacts that could influence the results of these trials should be noted.

Please refer to attached images.

Goal #4: A final report will be prepared summarizing the historical and more current distributions of iceplant within spineflower habitat in the park. The report will also discuss the relationships between spineflower colonization and the various physical and biotic factors, and will include appropriate management recommendations suggested by the results of this study. The nature of further studies that might augment management strategies will also be discussed.

Major Tasks and Deliverables 1. Conduct historical research on iceplant distribution and growth rate within the park. 2. Map historical and current distribution of iceplant using airphotos and GPS; create iceplant map. Juxtapose spineflower distribution with that of iceplant patches. 3. Select 20 or more potential iceplant removal sites; field verify these sites. 4. Deliverable: map of iceplant and spineflower habitats for coastal area of MacKerricher State Park, Laguna Point to Inglenook Creek. • Complete Section 106 NHPA clearance for removal sites. 5. Deliverable: completed NHPA documents • Establish plots for iceplant removal and subsequent monitoring of identified data sets. 6. Deliverable: updated map showing plot locations • Conduct initial photodocumentation and data collection.

16 7. Deliverable: first year photos and raw data • Manually remove iceplant; photodocument. 8. Deliverable: post-removal photos 9. Repeat data collection for all appropriate variables and photodocument in spring of each year 2005-2007. 10. Deliverable: updated raw data and statistical compilation • Remove iceplant regrowth from plots; photodocument. 11. Deliverable: updated plot photos. • Write report, including recommendations for iceplant removal and its implications for management of spineflower. 12. Deliverable: final data compilation, photographs, report, & management recommendations

Partners: Partners include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation [DPR]. The information from this study will enable these agencies to refine recovery efforts and management direction aimed at long term management of Howell’s spineflower. Funding will be administered through the California Department of Fish and Game.

17 Howell's Spineflower Recolonization Study Plot Data - May 2005

Plot # 123456789101112131415 Date 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/3/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 Observer Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Recorder Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Photos? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Slope (degrees) 2181112665127/7214288 Aspect (degrees) 220 299 268 4 20 276 350 240 201 242/62 58 240 295 244 212 Azimuth (degrees) 37 29 359 10 20 48 342 351 36 76 23 23 28 20 19 Distance to Ch ho (m) 1.3 >5 on plot 0.3 on plot 0.1 on plot 0.03 on plot 0.3 on plot on plot > 5 m 2 Estimated Ch ho on 50 m plot 00600200055010330 Trail on plot? yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no Mean litter depth (cm) 4.826 9.906 7.62 8.382 5.334 9.144 4.445 7.874 2.54 8.636 6.35 9.652 6.858 7.62 9.144 Bulk litter removed? no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no

1/06: Carpobrotus #seedlings/resprouts 560520640296310117530075050

Notes: 50 m2 plot data: Cover categories: 0 = 0%, 1 = 0-1%, 2 = 1-5%, 3 = 5-25%, 4 = 25-50%, 5 = 50-75%, 6 = 75-100%. 1 m2 plot data is estimated actual cover, to nearest 1%. 2 50 m plot data 123456789101112131415 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Abronia latifolia 000000000000010 Aira caryophyllea 110000000000000 Ambrosia chamissonis 000000000000011 Amsinckia spectabilis 010000000011111 Anagallis arvensis 110000000010010 Aphanes occidentalis 010000000000000 Armeria maritima 010000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 010000001000000 Asteraceae unknown sp. 110000000000000 Brassicaceae unknown sp. 000101010000000 Briza maxima 012011403200100 Bromus carinatus 322221000000000 Bromus diandrus 013333424221111 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 010001011000000 Cardamine oligosperma 010000000000101 Carpobrotus edulis 111111101111111 Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua 000000001000000 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare 010001000000000 Chorizanthe howellii 001001002110110 Cirsium vulgare 000000010000000

Page 1 Howell's Spineflower Recolonization Study Plot Data - May 2005

Plot # 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Date 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/10/2005 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 Observer Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Warner Recorder Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Edleman Photos? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Slope (degrees) 108424/6136687 Aspect (degrees) 190 270 308 128 120/256 272 201 160 244 233 Azimuth (degrees) 33 54 30 44 32 80 81 66 66 47 Distance to Ch ho (m) on plot on plot 0.5 > 5 m 2.0 1.4 > 5 m 1.1 on plot on plot 2 Estimated Ch ho on 50 m plot 1011000000200+ 60+ Trail on plot? no no no no no no no no yes yes Mean litter depth (cm) 4.826 8.89 9.144 8.89 9.652 10.414 3.81 5.08 5.588 5.334 Bulk litter removed? yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no

1/06: Carpobrotus #seedlings/resprouts 180 90 200 8 142 20 143 189 106 3

Notes: 50 m2 plot data: Cover categories: 0 = 0%, 1 = 0-1%, 2 = 1-5%, 3 = 5-25%, 4 = 25-50%, 5 = 50-75%, 6 = 75-100%. 1 m2 plot data is estimated actual cover, to nearest 1%. 2 50 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Abronia latifolia 0100000001 Aira caryophyllea 0000000000 Ambrosia chamissonis 1000000100 Amsinckia spectabilis 1110111111 Anagallis arvensis 1000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 0000001022 Asteraceae unknown sp. 0000000000 Brassicaceae unknown sp. 0000000000 Briza maxima 0000001000 Bromus carinatus 0000010000 Bromus diandrus 2010111222 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000010 Cardamine oligosperma 1100000011 Carpobrotus edulis 1111101111 Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua 0000000000 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare 0000000000 Chorizanthe howellii 1100010022 Cirsium vulgare 1000000000

Page 2 2 50 m plot data 123456789101112131415 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Claytonia perfoliata 011110000011100 Collinsia corymbosa 000000011000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 010000001000000 Daucus pusillus 110110111110100 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 010000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 010000000000000 Erodium cicutarium 110000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 000000000000001 Galium aparine 000000110010001 Geranium dissectum 001111112100100 Geranium molle 010121112211101 Gilia millefoliata 010000000101111 Grindelia stricta 111010110002200 Hesperevax sparsiflora 120000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 010000000000000 Holcus lanatus 110000000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 010000000000000 Hypochaeris glabra 020000001000000 Hypochaeris radicata 111101011100000 Juncus breweri 010000011100000 Lasthenia californica 110000000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 010121001100000 Leymus pacificus 111201111011111 Lotus micranthus 110000000000000 Lotus purshianus 010000000000000 Lupinus bicolor 110000010000000 Lupinus littoralis 021111211211111 Madia sativa 000100000000000 Marah oreganus 000100100000000 Medicago polymorpha 110100000000000 Nemophila menziesii 010010000010000 Oxalis corniculata 110000000000000 Phacelia distans 010000100000000 Phacelia insularis 010000000000000 Plantago erecta 110000000000000 Plantago lanceolata 110000000000000 Platystemon californicus 000000000000100 Poa annua 110000000000000 Poa douglasii 011001010011201 Poa unilateralis 120000000000000 Poaceae sp. 110000000000000

Page 3 2 50 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Claytonia perfoliata 0000010011 Collinsia corymbosa 0000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 1000001011 Daucus pusillus 0010010011 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 0000000021 Erodium cicutarium 0001000000 Eschscholzia californica 2000000100 Galium aparine 0100010000 Geranium dissectum 0000000022 Geranium molle 1110111111 Gilia millefoliata 0000001011 Grindelia stricta 0011001120 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 0001000001 Holcus lanatus 0000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 0000000010 Hypochaeris glabra 0000000011 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 0000000011 Lasthenia californica 0000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 0111111100 Lotus micranthus 0000000000 Lotus purshianus 0000000000 Lupinus bicolor 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis 0110111011 Madia sativa 0000000000 Marah oreganus 1000000000 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 0000000111 Oxalis corniculata 0000000000 Phacelia distans 0000000012 Phacelia insularis 0000000000 Plantago erecta 0000000000 Plantago lanceolata 0000000000 Platystemon californicus 0000000000 Poa annua 0000000000 Poa douglasii 1011121011 Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Poaceae sp. 0000000000

Page 4 2 50 m plot data 123456789101112131415 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Polygonum paronychia 001111011111201 Rumex acetosella 112331100011111 Senecio vulgaris 000000010011111 Soliva sessilis 110000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 000000021100000 Sonchus oleraceus 010110000010010 Stellaria media 000211110011111 Trifolium barbigerum 100000000000000 Trifolium depauperatum 100000000000000 Trifolium dubium 210000000000000 Trifolium glomeratum 100000000000000 Trifolium microcephalum 110000000000000 Trifolium subterraneum 010000000000000 Trifolium variegatum 100000000000000 Vicia sp. 000000000000000 Vulpia myuros 101000000000000 Yabea microcarpa 000000000000100 litter 556466454565656 moss 000000000000000 sand 002413045314231 soil 230000100000000

Page 5 2 50 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Species Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Cover Cat. Polygonum paronychia 1011121112 Rumex acetosella 1121111200 Senecio vulgaris 1110100122 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000010 Sonchus oleraceus 0010001010 Stellaria media 1110111211 Trifolium barbigerum 0000000000 Trifolium depauperatum 0000000000 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Trifolium glomeratum 0000000000 Trifolium microcephalum 0000000000 Trifolium subterraneum 0000000000 Trifolium variegatum 0000000000 Vicia sp. 0000000100 Vulpia myuros 1000000011 Yabea microcarpa 0000000000 litter 5556564645 moss 0000000000 sand 4342415233 soil 0000000000

Page 6 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot A % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Abronia latifolia 000000000000000 Ambrosia chamissonis 000000000000030 Amsinckia spectabilis 000000000000050 Anagallis arvensis <1000000000000<10 Aphanes occidentalis 000000000000000 Armeria maritima 000000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 000000000000000 Briza maxima 0010002505100000 Bromus carinatus 105010<1000000000 Bromus diandrus 00035<132011<150000 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 00000<1000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 000000000000000 Carpobrotus edulis 00000000<10<10010 Chorizanthe howellii 000000000000000 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000000000000 Daucus pusillus 0<100<10000000<100 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 000000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000000000 Erodium cicutarium 000000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 000000000000000 Galium aparine 000000000000000 Geranium dissectum 000020204<100<100 Geranium molle 020<115010200<1<100 Gilia millefoliata 00000000000000<1 Grindelia stricta 00002000000<1500 Hesperevax sparsiflora 000000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000000000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 0<10000000000000 Hypochaeris glabra 000000000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 000000000000000 Juncus breweri 000000000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 0000<10002000000 Leymus pacificus 0<102<1020<1000<100 Lotus sp. 000000000000000 Lupinus littoralis 04<106010000<1<100 Medicago polymorpha 0<10000000000000 Nemophila menziesii 000000000000000 Phacelia distans 000000200000000 Phacelia insularis 000000000000000

Page 7 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot A % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Abronia latifolia 000000000<1 Ambrosia chamissonis <1000000000 Amsinckia spectabilis 1000000000 Anagallis arvensis 0000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 0000000000 Briza maxima 0000000000 Bromus carinatus 0000000000 Bromus diandrus 00000<101102 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 0000000000 Carpobrotus edulis <10 <10 <10 <1<10 0 Chorizanthe howellii 0000000020 Claytonia perfoliata 0000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000000<1 Daucus pusillus 0000000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 0000000002 Erodium cicutarium 0000000000 Eschscholzia californica 5000000000 Galium aparine 00000<10000 Geranium dissectum 0000000010 Geranium molle 0000000000 Gilia millefoliata 0000000010 Grindelia stricta 0000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 0000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 0000000000 Hypochaeris glabra 00000000<10 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 0000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 0000<10<1000 Lotus sp. 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis <10<100000<10 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 0000000000 Phacelia distans 0000000000 Phacelia insularis 0000000000

Page 8 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot A % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Poaceae sp. <100000000000000 Poa douglasii 000000000000700 Poa unilateralis 000000000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000<1000<100120<1 Rumex acetosella 0<1081500000<10<100 Senecio vulgaris 0000000000000<10 Soliva sessilis 000000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 000000020000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0<100<100000000<10 Stellaria media 000000<1000<100<10 Trifolium dubium <100000000000000 Trifolium subterraneum 030000000000000 Vulpia myuros 000000000000000 litter 90 78 97 78 54 91 35 94 76 87 93 79 85 85 99 moss 000000000000000 sand 00280904012220<15<1 soil <1 60000000000000

# Cho how plants 000000000000000

Page 9 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot A % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Poaceae sp. 0000000000 Poa douglasii 000000<10<10 Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000020033 Rumex acetosella 00000000<10 Senecio vulgaris <1000000076 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0000000000 Stellaria media <100000070<1 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Trifolium subterraneum 0000000000 Vulpia myuros 0000000000 litter 88 99 87 100 55 98 78 82 85 84 moss 0000000000 sand 7 <1 13 0 45 0 22 <1 <1 2 soil 0000000000

# Cho how plants 0000000050

Page 10 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot B % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Abronia latifolia 000000000000000 Aira caryophyllea 030000000000000 Amsinckia spectabilis 000000000000010 Anagallis arvensis <1000000000<10000 Aphanes occidentalis 000000000000000 Armeria maritima 000000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 000000000000000 Asteraceae unknown sp. 0<10000000000000 Briza maxima 00001060<1000000 Bromus carinatus 4<10010000000000 Bromus diandrus 00001<16041661000<1 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 000000000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 000000000000<100 Carpobrotus edulis 0000000000<1<1<1<1<1 Chorizanthe howellii 000000000000<100 Clarkia davyi 020000000000000 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 00000000<1000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 000000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000000000 Erodium cicutarium 000000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 000000000000000 Galium aparine 000000000010000 Geranium dissectum 000<1<10003<100000 Geranium molle 000000<104200000 Gilia millefoliata 0000000000000<10 Grindelia stricta 000000000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0<10000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000000000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 0<10000000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 0<10000000000000 Juncus breweri 000000000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 00000200<1000000 Leymus pacificus <10010020<1000000 Lotus micranthus 0<10000000000000 Lupinus littoralis 00001000<1160<10<10 Marah oreganus 000000100000000 Medicago polymorpha 000000000000000 Nemophila menziesii 000000000000000

Page 11 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot B % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Abronia latifolia 000000000<1 Aira caryophyllea 0000000000 Amsinckia spectabilis 20000000<10 Anagallis arvensis 0000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 0000000000 Asteraceae unknown sp. 0000000000 Briza maxima 0000000000 Bromus carinatus 0000000000 Bromus diandrus <100003<1<1<1<1 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 0<10000000<1 Carpobrotus edulis <10 <1<1<1<1<1<1<10 Chorizanthe howellii 0000000050 Clarkia davyi 0000000000 Claytonia perfoliata 0000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 00000000<10 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 0000000000 Erodium cicutarium 0000000000 Eschscholzia californica 1000000000 Galium aparine 00000<10000 Geranium dissectum 0000000020 Geranium molle 00000000<10 Gilia millefoliata 00000000<10 Grindelia stricta 00000000<10 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 0000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 0000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 000000004<1 Lessingia filaginifolia 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 000<10<10000 Lotus micranthus 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis 0<100<1000<10 Marah oreganus 0000000000 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 00000000<10

Page 12 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot B % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Phacelia distans 000000000000000 Phacelia insularis 000000000000000 Plantago lanceolata 000000000000000 Poaceae sp. 000000000000000 Poa douglasii 000000000000000 Poa unilateralis 0<10000000000000 Polygonum paronychia 000000020000000 Rumex acetosella 0<1000000000<1<100 Senecio vulgaris 000000000000<1<10 Soliva sessilis 000000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 000000070000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0001<10000000000 Stellaria media 000000<100000<100 Trifolium dubium 0<10000000000000 Vulpia myuros 000000000000000 litter 96 62 100 85 96 69 31 83 40 66 98 74 98 86 100 moss 000000000000000 sand 00013029043310<1250130 soil <1 30 0000000000000

# Cho how plants 000000000000100

Page 13 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot B % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Phacelia distans 000000000<1 Phacelia insularis 0000000000 Plantago lanceolata 0000000000 Poaceae sp. 0000000000 Poa douglasii 0000000000 Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000000<107 Rumex acetosella 03<100000<10 Senecio vulgaris 0000000082 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0000000000 Stellaria media 0100000320 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Vulpia myuros 0000000000 0 litter 92 94 80 99 85 98 99 96 74 90 moss 0000000000 sand 5 1 20 0 15 <1 0120 soil 0000000000

# Cho how plants 0000000080

Page 14 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot C % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Amsinckia spectabilis 000000000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 000000000000000 Armeria maritima 000000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 000000000000000 Briza maxima 005060800<100000 Bromus carinatus <130100000000000 Bromus diandrus 0002403347<120000 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 000000010000000 Cardamine oligosperma 000000000000000 Carpobrotus edulis 00000000<10<1<10<10 Chorizanthe howellii 00000000<1000000 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 00000000<1000000 Daucus pusillus 000000<100<100000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 000000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000000000 Erodium cicutarium 000000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 000000000000000 Galium aparine 000000000010000 Geranium dissectum 00005000<1000000 Geranium molle 000010000<110000<1 Gilia millefoliata 000000000000000 Grindelia stricta 000000000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 000000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000000000000000 Holcus lanatus <100000000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 000<100000000000 Juncus breweri 000000000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 000080000000000 Leymus pacificus <1003001000<10000 Lotus sp. 000000000000000 Lupinus littoralis 00008000<1000000 Medicago polymorpha 000000000000000 Nemophila menziesii 000000000000000 Phacelia distans 000000000000000 Phacelia insularis 000000000000000 Plantago lanceolata 000000000000000 Poaceae sp. 000000000000000 Poa douglasii 000000000000000 Poa unilateralis 000000000000000 Polygonum paronychia 000020000000<100

Page 15 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot C % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Amsinckia spectabilis 00000000<10 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 0000000000 Briza maxima 0000000000 Bromus carinatus 0000000000 Bromus diandrus 120000000<122 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000000 Cardamine oligosperma <1000000000 Carpobrotus edulis 1 <1<10 <10 <1<1<10 Chorizanthe howellii <1000000002 Claytonia perfoliata 0000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000002<1 Daucus pusillus 0000000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000<1 Erodium cicutarium 0000000000 Eschscholzia californica 2000000<100 Galium aparine 0000000000 Geranium dissectum 0000000010<1 Geranium molle 0<100000000 Gilia millefoliata 0000000000 Grindelia stricta 0000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 0000000003 Holcus lanatus 0000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 0000000000 Lessingia filaginifolia 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 0000<100000 Lotus sp. 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis 0<10010<1000 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 0000000100 Phacelia distans 0000000001 Phacelia insularis 0000000000 Plantago lanceolata 0000000000 Poaceae sp. 0000000000 Poa douglasii 0000060000 Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Polygonum paronychia 000001000<1

Page 16 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot C % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Senecio vulgaris 00000000000000<1 Soliva sessilis 000000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 000000000<100000 Sonchus oleraceus 000000000000000 Stellaria media 000<100<1000<10000 Trifolium dubium 000000000000000 Vulpia myuros 000000000000000 litter 98 85 88 65 54 94 58 78 78 93 97 60 100 84 100 moss 000000000000000 sand 00719<160171360400160 soil 1 10 0000<100000000

# Cho how plants 000000001000000

Page 17 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot C % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Senecio vulgaris 0000000080 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0000000000 Stellaria media <1<100000<100 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Vulpia myuros <1000000000 litter 51 99 85 100 74 93 75 50 79 71 moss 0000000000 sand 30 1 15 0 25 0 25 48 1 1 soil 0000000000

# Cho how plants 1000000008

Page 18 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot D % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Anagallis arvensis <100000000000000 Amsinckia spectabilis 00000000000<10<10 Aphanes occidentalis 000000000000000 Armeria maritima 000000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 00000000<1000000 Asteraceae unknown sp. <1 00000000000000 Briza maxima 000010904000000 Bromus carinatus 80<1020000000000 Bromus diandrus 00<11210010030000000 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 000000000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 000000000000000 Carpobrotus edulis <10000<100<10<100<1<1 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare 00000<1000000000 Chorizanthe howellii 00<1000001000000 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000000000000 Daucus pusillus 100000<103000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 000000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000000000 Erodium cicutarium <100000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 000000000000000 Galium aparine 000000000000000 Geranium dissectum 0000<10<101000000 Geranium molle 000010<100<100000 Gilia millefoliata 000000000000000 Grindelia stricta 0000<10000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 000000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000000000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 3000000<10000000 Juncus breweri 000000020<100000 Leymus pacificus <100200210000<100 Lotus micranthus 100000000000000 Lupinus littoralis 000<100<1<1<100<100<1 Medicago polymorpha 000000000000000 Nemophila menziesii 000000000000000 Phacelia distans 000000000000000 Phacelia insularis 000000000000000 Plantago erecta 100000000000000 Plantago lanceolata 000000000000000 Poa annua <100000000000000 Poaceae unknown sp. 400000000000000 Poa douglasii 000000000000000 Page 19 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot D % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Anagallis arvensis 0000000000 Amsinckia spectabilis 0000000<100 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 0000000040 Asteraceae unknown sp. 0000000000 Briza maxima 0000000000 Bromus carinatus 0000000000 Bromus diandrus 2000010<142 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 0000000000 Carpobrotus edulis <1 <1 <1 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare 0000000000 Chorizanthe howellii 00000000130 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000<1 Cryptantha leiocarpa 0000000020 Daucus pusillus 00000000<10 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 0000000070 Erodium cicutarium 0000000000 Eschscholzia californica 3000000000 Galium aparine 0000000000 Geranium dissectum 0000000014 Geranium molle 0000<100000 Gilia millefoliata 00000000<10 Grindelia stricta 0000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 0000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 00<10<100000 Lotus micranthus 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis 0<10000<1000 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 00000000<10 Phacelia distans 0000000020 Phacelia insularis 0000000000 Plantago erecta 0000000000 Plantago lanceolata 0000000000 Poa annua 0000000000 Poaceae unknown sp. 0000000000 Poa douglasii 1000000000 Page 20 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot D % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Poa unilateralis 000000000000000 Polygonum paronychia 001<100000000000 Rumex acetosella 0007900000000<10 Senecio vulgaris 000000000000000 Soliva sessilis 000000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000<10<100000 Sonchus oleraceus 000<1<10000000000 Stellaria media 00060<100000000<1 Trifolium dubium 700000000000000 Vulpia myuros 000000000000000 litter 68 90 99 63 77 90 77 86 32 90 99 55 100 78 100 moss 000000000000000 sand 00010<11001128100450220 soil 3 10 0000200000000

# Cho how plants 001000007000000

Page 21 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot D % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000000000 Rumex acetosella <1<10000<1100 Senecio vulgaris 0<100<1000<11 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0000000000 Stellaria media <1<10000010<1 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Vulpia myuros 00000000<10 litter 67 73 25 100 66 99 97 93 8 93 moss 0000000000 sand 27 26 75 0 33 035590 soil 0000000000

# Cho how plants 00000000400

Page 22 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot E % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Aira caryophyllea 020000000000000 Anagallis arvensis <100000000000000 Ambrosia chamissonis 00000000000000<1 Amsinckia spectabilis 000000000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 000000000000000 Armeria maritima 000000000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 000000000000000 Briza maxima 00000<140<1000000 Bromus carinatus 410<1000000000000 Bromus diandrus 010123335<1<1<10000<1 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 00000000<1000000 Cardamine oligosperma 000000000000<100 Carpobrotus edulis 0000<1000000<11<10 Chorizanthe howellii 000000006000000 Clarkia davyi 0<10000000000000 Claytonia perfoliata 000000000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000000000000 Daucus pusillus 000000000000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 000000000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 000000000000000 Erodium cicutarium 000000000000000 Eschscholzia californica 00000000000000<1 Galium aparine 00000000000000<1 Geranium dissectum 000<1<10<100000000 Geranium molle 0000<10010<100000 Gilia millefoliata 000000000000000 Grindelia stricta 0000000<10000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 010000000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000000000000000 Hordeum brachyantherum 020000000000000 Hypochaeris glabra 0<10000000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 020000000000000 Juncus breweri 000000010000000 Lessingia filiaginifolia 0000<10000000000 Leymus pacificus 00030<13000<10000 Lotus micranthus 0<10000000000000 Lupinus bicolor 0<10000000000000 Lupinus littoralis 00000<120000<1<10<1 Medicago polymorpha 000000000000000 Nemophila menziesii 000000000000000 Phacelia distans 000000000000000 Phacelia insularis 000000000000000 Page 23 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot E % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Aira caryophyllea 0000000000 Anagallis arvensis 0000000000 Ambrosia chamissonis 0000000<100 Amsinckia spectabilis 0000000000 Aphanes occidentalis 0000000000 Armeria maritima 0000000000 Artemisia pycnocephala 000000004<1 Briza maxima 0000000000 Bromus carinatus 0000000000 Bromus diandrus <10000<14<132 Camissonia cheiranthifolia 0000000000 Cardamine oligosperma 0000000000 Carpobrotus edulis 0 0 <1<1<1<1<1<10 0 Chorizanthe howellii 0000000022 Clarkia davyi 0000000000 Claytonia perfoliata 0000000000 Cryptantha leiocarpa 000000001<1 Daucus pusillus 0000000000 Dicotyledones unknown sp. 0000000000 Eriogonum latifolium 00000000<10 Erodium cicutarium 0000000000 Eschscholzia californica <1000000100 Galium aparine 0000000000 Geranium dissectum 0000000000 Geranium molle 00<10000000 Gilia millefoliata 0000000000 Grindelia stricta 0000000000 Hesperevax sparsiflora 0000000000 Heterotheca sessiliflora 000<1000003 Hordeum brachyantherum 0000000000 Hypochaeris glabra 0000000000 Hypochaeris radicata 0000000000 Juncus breweri 00000000<10 Lessingia filiaginifolia 0000000000 Leymus pacificus 00<10000000 Lotus micranthus 0000000000 Lupinus bicolor 0000000000 Lupinus littoralis 0000<100020 Medicago polymorpha 0000000000 Nemophila menziesii 0000000000 Phacelia distans 0000000045 Phacelia insularis 0000000000 Page 24 1 m2 plot data 1 23456789101112131415 Plot E % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Plantago lanceolata 000000000000000 Poa annua 0<10000000000000 Poaceae sp. 020000000000000 Poa douglasii 000000000000000 Poa unilateralis 010000000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000000000<10000 Rumex acetosella 0<1122<10000000102 Senecio vulgaris 000000000000<100 Soliva sessilis 000000000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 000000010<100000 Sonchus oleraceus 000000000000000 Stellaria media 000100000000<100 Trifolium dubium 000000000000000 Vicia sp. 000000000000000 Vulpia myuros 000000000000000 litter 92 30 95 55 95 75 56 86 23 78 99 55 98 93 98 moss 000000000000000 sand 00318422011702104507<1 soil 4 36 0000000000000

# Cho how plants 000000004000000

Page 25 2 1 m plot data 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plot E % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover % Cover Plantago lanceolata 0000000000 Poa annua 0000000000 Poaceae sp. 0000000000 Poa douglasii 00010<1000<1 Poa unilateralis 0000000000 Polygonum paronychia 0000000002 Rumex acetosella 10300001300 Senecio vulgaris 0000000<1<1<1 Soliva sessilis 0000000000 Sonchus asper ssp. asper 0000000000 Sonchus oleraceus 0000000000 Stellaria media <1<100<100200 Trifolium dubium 0000000000 Vicia sp. 0000000<100 Vulpia myuros 00000000<14 litter 79 45 87 99 70 99 17 68 50 69 moss 0000000000 sand 20 55 10 0 30 0 79 16 34 13 soil 0000000000

# Cho how plants 000000001319

Page 26